Page 17 - PCPA Winter 2024 Bulletin Magazine

CHRIS BOYLE'S LEGAL UPDATE
7:30pm, he encountered a black Dodge Durango being
operated in the area of Stenton Avenue and Johnson
Street of Philadelphia, PA. Upon initial observation,
the Officer noted only “just that it was occupied; two
occupants … one driver, one passenger.” Officer Dohan
further testified a Bureau of Motor Vehicles (BMV) check
of the license plate was run that revealed the registered
owner of the Durango had a suspended license and the
vehicle registration expired at the end of November.
WINTER 2024 BULLETIN
The suppression court's
conclusions of law, however,
are not binding on an appellate
court, whose duty is to determine
if the suppression court properly
applied the law [*5] to the facts.
*Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior
Court.
J-S23012-24
When [*2] the police vehicle’s lights and sirens were
activated to effectuate the stop, the Durango initially
pulled over, but then drove away within seconds. A
car chase ensued, and while Officer Dohan called for
backup over police radio, he lost sight of the vehicle.
Eventually, he encountered the Durango again, stopped
by plain clothes police units, when Appellee exited the
passenger side door and fled on foot. Officer Dohan
joined the pedestrian chase but did not catch up with
Appellee until the other officers had him in custody.
Officer Raheem Williams testified that he was working
in plain clothes on the night of the incident when he
responded as backup to a call regarding a Black Dodge
Durango. The Durango collided with his unmarked
police vehicle and Appellee exited from the passenger
side, then fled on foot. Officer Williams chased Appellee
and testified: “I could see that he had … something
in his hand that was flashing in his hand as he’s
running … on the sidewalk I got close to him where I
could almost grab him … I realized he had a gun with
a flashlight flashing on.” The Officer saw Appellee
toss the gun, which hit a fence and fell to the ground.
Appellee was subsequently apprehended, [*3] and the
gun was recovered with the flashlight still flashing on it.
Suppression Court Opinion, 10/20/23, at 2-3 (footnote
and citations to record omitted).
Appellant challenged the legality of the traffic stop in
an omnibus motion that sought, inter alia, to suppress
physical evidence seized where the only basis for the
stop was information possessed by the police that
the owner of the vehicle had a suspended license.
See Omnibus Pretrial Motion, 3/13/231; N.T., Suppres-
sion Hearing 8/28/23, at 6.
1It is not entirely clear from a review of Appellant’s
Omnibus Pretrial Motion that Appellant was challeng-
ing the legality of the initial traffic stop. Regardless,
at a hearing, counsel stated for the record that the
basis for suppression was that the stop was illegal
based upon the officers only possessing informa-
tion that the owner of the vehicle had a suspended
license. N.T., 8/28/23, at 6.
- 2 -
J-S23012-24
After a hearing, the court granted Appellee’s
motion and suppressed all evidence as fruit of the
poisonous tree. N.T., Suppression, at 66. Despite the
Commonwealth presenting officer testimony at the
suppression hearing that the basis for the stop was
that the owner had a suspended license, and [*4] that
the vehicle was not registered, the suppression court
did not find the entirety of this testimony to be credible.
Id. The suppression court found that the only basis for
the stop was that the owner had a suspended license.
Id. This timely interlocutory appeal followed.2
On appeal, the Commonwealth raises a sole issue
for our review: “Did the lower court err by suppress-
ing evidence where police lawfully stopped a car for
investigation after determining that the owner of the
vehicle had a suspended license?” Commonwealth’s
Brief at 3.
When faced with a challenge to the grant of a suppres-
sion motion, our standard of review is well-settled:
When the Commonwealth appeals from a suppression
order, we follow a clearly defined standard of review
and consider only the evidence from the defendant’s
witnesses together with the evidence of the prosecu-
tion that, when read in the context of the entire record,
remains uncontradicted. The suppression court’s find-
continued on next page
17